If you think this is reasonable that’s on you. There is a major double standard at play.
Until they show it, I’ll believe it. This is gajin knowing them they’ll increase the CE by 300mm and increase the KE by 20mm
1 Like
Nah it’s more like: ill do it but im asking you to do the same kinda thing
Hey guys. It’s the guy who worked Abrams development.
A USMC veteran on the M1A1 Abrams tank: “This tank was designed for assault!” - News - War Thunder
First off. Brilliant work. This was a thorough and absolutely sound evaluation of available information.
Second, your conclusion, highlighted in the quote above, is not inaccurate.
HOWEVER, you are failing to understand the magnitude of the issue.
Exhibit A:
This is the Track-Width Mine Plow. Standard equipment for one tank in four to 2 tanks in 14 depending on the situation. It weighs several tons and can be used for months on end without significant logistical challenges.
Exhibit B:
This is the Dozer Blade. Used on the M1A1 FEP by the USMC for over a decade before the USMC retired all of their Abrams.
This too has significant weight, though it is much lighter than the TWMP.
When using these devices on long term (six month or longer deployments) crewman and mechanics will often INDEX the front one or two torsion bars. Indexing is where you rotate how the suspension arm so it is at higher tension at rest. You rotate the arm’s connection to the torsion bar. Or at least that is the best way I can explain it. This higher tension improves the angle of the tank while it is operating with the TWMP or Dozer Blade. Although the blade is generally lighter and you face less of an issue.
These suspension components may break more often than standard but it is not a significant amount. In fact regular suspension components break all the time. The whole tank is very heavy and the suspensions we use are at the very limit of our metalurgical and engineering technology. In fact suspension repairs is perhaps the most common repair done to Abrams of all types.
The reason we make armor improvements to a tank is because it is to address vulnerabilities. And while I will not discuss capabilities or our assessments I will remind everyone here that combat in real life is not at all what it is like in War Thunder. Obviously. So whatever is done to the tank is not done based on what happens in a simulation like War Thunder.
Finally, in my opinion, the fact that the DU hull armor was tested and fielded effectively on five Abrams’ hulls is sufficient justification to add them to the game. IT is not only possible, it is probable that should the need arise it would be done. It is not “fake” at all. In fact it is more real (many years of training use of these tanks) than several of the prototypes we have in game.
I recognize that this is an opinion. I also recognize that while Gaijin has a completely logical reason not to add the armor, I also know they are overstating the logistical side of the problem. If the armor was necessary we could immediately adapt with a slight increase in wear on a few suspension components. We also have modified the suspension before to adapt it to the increased weight of Vehicles like the M1A1 HC, FEP, and M1A2 SEP.
Thank you for your time and reasoned consideration.
36 Likes
I just realized that the sepv3 dont got APS, or at least in this blog, though a different abrams gets APS?
I might be slow, I didnt test dev but why isnt the APS in the m1a2 sep v3??
3 Likes
They provide little to no source info when buffing Soviet vehicles but suddenly they have a high burden of proof?
10 Likes
I can bring you all of that and it will not matter because the oponent can still die to a shot anywhere that isn’t the turret check.
What exactly is unreasonable about it? we don’t even know what the armor will be like.
I assume you wanted the SEPv3 to have enough armor to carry your significant skill issue?
1 Like
My point. They don’t even provide us with papers riddled with propaganda.
1 Like
I never said I was good at this game. I’m not even an American main.
And all the armor that the T-series have also doesn’t matter since they are so incredibly easy to kill.
Thank you for this, I’m sure plenty of people here appreciate this.
Gaijin however have a strict rule of no changes based on word of mouth ((unless you are some guy in the British mod saying that the engine of CR3 is worse than it is in game, despite him talking about CR3 production and not TD, and even then he was wrong, then that’s fine))
Sadly I think this will come as a mute point.
3 Likes
Assuming you mean Abrams, there’s UFP which overperforms against every dart in the game. It should not be able to ricochet even DM23 105, yet it effortlessly bounces DM53.
Yes LFP we all know. I just don’t appreciate the clear double standard going on here. Nor do I appreciate the lack of transparency regarding certain buffs.
2 Likes
500 kg is like B-Tech to C-Tech
About 150mm in hull increase on Leo 2A4 → 2A5
Theoretically it could protect upwards of 500mm but I think they’ll just do DM33 120 or Mango.
Sidenote, 2A5 and 2A6NL are overperforming in terms of armor, they should be 500 kg lighter and have B-Tech.
4 Likes
Not particulary unreasonable in context, its a decent guess
1 Like
your right
the MCBS will cause much greater loading than 4.5 tons of armor in the LFP
because the significantly longer moment arm
1 Like
you may want to remove the offending item in Jaden’s quote too
1 Like
seem like they really have another information
1 Like
I mean, what am I supposed to do? I don’t have access to logistical records. Also those aren’t for public consumption. Besides, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. And the TWMP and Dozer Blade, to me, put paid to the whole logistical side of the argument. The real argument is moot though. It’s pretty clear there is no “special armor” on the hulls of tanks other than those five. Their weight and public document analysis is pretty freaking sound.
1 Like